There are certainly many ways to use money to influence politics, but can you just spend a bunch of money and beat whichever candidate you want? It is certainly true that candidates who spend more money are more likely to win, but how much of this is people giving the most money to the most likable candidate and how much is actually caused by the money? Are there really "bought" elections?
Maybe not. A study by Steven Levitt (one of the authors of Freakonomics although this paper was before that book) compared the outcomes of elections between the same two candidates if they faced off multiple times. In this study he found that in order to increase a candidate's position by 1 point they needed to double spending. These results are radically different from previous studies which had shown that incumbents were largely unaffected by spending more money, but that challengers were very dependent on it. Dr. Levitt claims these results call for radically different public policy. Campaign spending limits are desirable as currently representatives use time they could be working on raising excess funding which will have little effect on the election, Political Action Committees are given excess power when they are able to contribute however much they want, and high quality challengers are discouraged from challenging well funded incumbents. However, publicly funded campaigns are not warranted (why use government money when people are ready and willing to supply it themselves?)
So can you buy an election? Well money certainly isn't everything. Ask Jeb Bush.
It makes sense that the more money a candidate has, the higher chance they can win an election. The more money, the better marketing, which may lead to more votes. Jeb Bush received a ton of money based on his name recognition and his connection within the GOP establishment. However, it seems in this election round people are very angry. The rise of Trump is proof that you can spend relatively little money and still do well in primaries. Emotions will always win out over money.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Kenny on this one. The major candidates in this election all have a decent amount of funding, so most of them should have access to adequate marketing, but it seems like there is a new factor at play in this election that I haven't seen in the past. More specifically, unorthodox presidential candidates (Sanders and Trump) have received a lot of support from Americans that have become apathetic toward our political system. Both Trump and Sanders have tapped into these apathetic Americans that are tired of voting for a run-of-the-mill candidate, simply by not being average. I don't think that you could necessarily buy an election. At a certain point, you need to win the public over with what you bring to the table as a candidate. Trump and Sanders have both brought more to the table than the average candidate, and have gained some zealous followers as a result.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that money will help a certain candidate effectively. However, money cannot be a cause-and-effect in terms of the election. As Kenny pointed out, money cannot win the election. Additionally, I believe that money becomes less significant factor for a victory of the election because candidates representing each party have enough channels to finance money that they need.
ReplyDeleteShould candidates be allowed to fund their own campaigns? Trump takes pride in the fact that he is allegedly funding his own campaign. Interesting to note is that he can reimburse himself for the money he has personally put into the campaign with outside donations.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting piece on the Clinton campaign can be found at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house .
ReplyDeleteThe key sentence for me is : "While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money" that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed."